Surendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

S. A. Dharmadhikari, J

The applicant has filed this second application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.24.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C . No.46048/2021.

T he applicant has been arrested on 24.08.2021 by Police Station Bhonti, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.255/2021 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 506, 450 of IPC.

Allegation against the applicant and another co-accused person, in short, is that they forcefully took the prosecutrix from her home in absence of her husband and was subjected to sexual intercourse by co-accused Hemant and also threatened her of dire consequences if she reports the matter to anybody. On the basis of the aforesaid, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 24.08.2021. Charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. There is no allegation of committing rape on the present applicant. The only allegation against him is that he brought the prosecutrix alongwith him and handed her over to co-accused Hemant. The applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID-19, detention of the applicant in already congested prison may be detrimental. The applicant is permanent resident of District Shivpuri (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made out.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the application contending that on the basis of the allegations and material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is further submitted that even if there may not be any allegation of rape on the present applicant but according to Section 450 of IPC, the present applicant committed house trespass in order to commit offence. The punishment for such an offence may be extended to 10 years. Custody period is also less. On such grounds he prays for rejection of application.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and gravity of offence, this is not a fit case in which bail may be granted to the applicant.

Accordingly, the instant application stands rejected.